44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/3/22 3:46:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, you are making me feel old.
The nature of that question, quite frankly, is shameful. Energy security is one of the reasons why there has been such an issue with appeasing Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. The threat of natural gas being shut off to Europe was a tool he used to try to exert his influence.
We can actually do multiple things at once. Maybe the New Democrats can only do one thing, and say, “We can only do this, and therefore we do not think about that”. We can actually think about planning for a future where Canadian natural gas can provide energy security around the world, while we do other things. We in the Conservative Party, in the opposition, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 3:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join this debate on the tragedy taking place in Ukraine. In 2016 and then again in 2018, I attended the OSCE, which is the organization for security and co-operation in Europe, for parliamentary missions first in Tbilisi, Georgia, and then in Berlin.
Russian aggression, territorial interference and misinformation campaigns were always uppermost in the discussions with member states. Economic actions, specifically the disruption of oil and gas supplies, were the threats that underlined the discussions, but there was always the fear that if there was not compliance, Russia would use its military might to make its point. Of course, the Russian representatives to these meetings always denied any such motives, stating that any actions they might contemplate were at the urging of patriots within those nations. They were not believed then, and they are not to be believed now.
The co-operation they sought on the Nord Stream project was a great example of Russian manipulation. Using the European and North American fixation on green strategies and policies, they effectively produced campaigns to demonize hydraulic fracking, thus stigmatizing research and development in this area. By encouraging agreements with new gas pipeline projects for themselves, they knew that they would be able to keep these markets to themselves. These misinformation campaigns sadly have been active on Canadian soil for years. I am a firm believer that we should neither glorify nor demonize any of the energy sources that we have been blessed with, that we should remain stewards of our land and that we should also approach energy security with our eyes wide open.
At the OSCE meetings that I attended, my Ukrainian counterparts were very blunt about what one could expect from any agreements made with Russia. They referenced the original Minsk agreement, which was a failed attempt at a ceasefire aimed at halting the Russian-backed separatists who had seized swaths of territory following Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. The Minsk 2 deal, which set out military and political steps, remains unimplemented, primarily because of Russia's insistence that it was not party to the conflict and therefore was not bound by its terms. The actions of this last week, and Ukrainian assertions about Russian aggressions, made it abundantly clear that they were right all along.
We can comment further on how this all came about, but the real focus now is that Ukraine has been brutally attacked by Russia. What can we do now? How can we help Ukraine? How can we ensure our own sovereignty stays intact? How must we react to the threat of nuclear escalation? How do we react to a Russian leader whose personal reality is that of a Cold War dictator? Countries around the world have made strategic moves that include banning Russian aircraft over their territory, as well as a series of sanctions placed on major Russian players. There are many more details to come in these areas, and hopefully these impacts will be such that they will not allow Russian oligarchs to slip through.
There have been ambassadors expelled, as well as embassy officials recalled. All are actions designed to help make the point that Russia has chosen to isolate itself on the international stage. The misinformation campaign led by Russia Today is being handled by individual communication companies. As we speak, these companies have taken RT off the air. Had the CRTC pushed this earlier, it would have been helpful, but kudos to the industry for stepping up.
Having spoken to leaders of the Ukrainian community in Alberta, they firmly believe that we must ensure that humanitarian aid is available, that safe passage to Canada can be facilitated, that troops will be supplied with the necessary armaments and that full pressure will continue to be applied to Putin and his regime. Actions such as Russia's removal from organizations such as the G20 and the OSCE were also suggested, as was the implementation of visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada.
On the issue of our sovereignty, there are lessons to be learned. Germany has now seen fit to increase its military spending to 2% of GDP. It and many other European nations have realized that they cannot be held energy hostages, and that a global analysis of this reality is now needed more than ever. This is part of a long-term fix, but no country is better suited to assist in this than Canada. We await the Liberal government's acceptance of this reality.
Sovereignty also means dealing with the reality that Canada shares an Arctic border with Russia. We have let this reality slip from our consciousness, but a reawakening is necessary for us as a nation.
There needs to be a serious plan for Canada's Arctic that will address the aging NORAD early warning system, fix our broken military procurement system and ensure that we will work closely in collaboration with Scandinavian countries and the U.S. to ensure Arctic peace and security.
The threat of nuclear action, which is Putin's latest veiled threat, is something that is disconcerting to all, but this is a reality that exists when leaders seek and attain ultimate control of their people. Perhaps the outpouring of support for Ukraine from within Russia, the potential of real economic collapse, not just for the political and financial elites but for the Russian people as well, and the current international condemnation will become strong enough for Putin to find another path or for the Russian people to find another path for him.
On the issue of energy security, I want to put on record segments of the address I gave in July of 2016 to the OSCE meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia. I stated that, for Canada, energy security and clean energy transition go hand in hand. Energy efficiency and renewables are key parts of the equation. According to the International Energy Agency, improving energy efficiency alone could get us nearly halfway to Paris commitments, while improving global energy security.
As part of its energy union strategy, the EU aims to enhance its energy security solidarity and trust by diversifying Europe's sources of energy as well. As we can see, energy security truly is a global challenge that calls for strong, multilateral co-operation among our countries.
Energy is the backbone of any economy, and thus of our security. A healthy energy sector must be able to support the day-to-day needs of our people, sustain the growth of our economies and contribute to the sustainability of our environment and natural resources. According to the International Energy Agency, even with proposed diversification, the world's demand for energy could grow by nearly one-third by the year 2040.
I went on to state that Canada is a stable democracy with a strong economy. We represent a secure, reliable and ethical source of energy for the world's future. The Canadian oil and gas brand, as well, is well respected throughout the world by those who are knowledgeable about the industry. We have some of the strongest regulations on the planet. We demand that oil and gas activity be monitored, that producers properly respect landholders and that companies adhere to the rules of proper reclamation.
When it comes to the fossil fuel debate, all we ask for is honesty and fairness. The profits, royalties and taxes that come from this industry build our schools, fund our hospitals and allow us to contribute to help alleviate global poverty, yet we are demonized by so-called environmental activists that see fighting Canada as a soft target, one where public pressure will slow down development. Meanwhile, foreign interests, some engaged with renewables and others with non-renewable fuels, including their own oil and gas interests, are able to hold back one of the most responsible and ethical producers from expanding and reaching foreign markets.
I concluded with my challenge for those that do us economic harm to compare what we as Canadians contribute to the world, as far as safety, security and respect for human dignity is concerned, with those countries that presently sell their oil to us. I believe the answer was clear.
The time for Canada to step up has never been so critical. The Liberal government has failed to recognize that oil and gas is vital to Canadian and European security. We need to get new pipelines built to tidewater to displace Russian natural gas. Russia supplies 40% of Europe's natural gas and uses this to intimidate Europe and Ukraine, threatening to cut off supplies to Europe. If supplies are cut, people will freeze, industries will shutter and Europe's GDP will plummet.
Conservatives stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and over one million Canadians with ties to Ukraine. We believe that Canada must strengthen our own defences and renew our commitment to the NATO alliances in the face of the threats of Russia. As Conservatives, we know that Canadians must take Russian aggression seriously. We know that Canada's security is inextricably tied to that of Europe and that now is in the time for us to acknowledge that fact with action.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:03:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Courage has a home country, and that country is Ukraine. Courage has a people, and that people is the Ukrainian people. Ukrainians’ resilience is legendary and once again in full view today. Ukraine is the world’s inspiration and its strength, the strength to join forces against Vladimir Putin.
The Ukrainian people survived Stalin, the Nazi occupation and the yoke of communism. They are invincible. Today, Vladimir Putin’s forces are meeting with the ferocious resistance of a deeply proud, intrepid people whose love for freedom and for their history, culture and democracy is unconditional.
The collective response to this blatant, unprovoked and highly reprehensible offensive has so far been exemplary. Like all of us, I hope that it will be effective and decisive, that Putin and his friends will clearly fail, and that other dictators considering the same course of action will understand the risks and consequences of doing so.
I must point out that this response is not a simple affair. It is complex, a daunting challenge. It is based on the unprecedented collaboration of a large number of countries that instantly saw in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a threat to democracy and freedom around the world, to international security.
It is a multi-pronged response, namely diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, financial and even logistical, in terms of the procurement of military equipment. There is also the cybersecurity component to counteract cyber-attacks, the new weapons of war, as well as the other components taking place in real time, such as the growing refugee crisis the conflict has caused.
We have seen a complex, coordinated response to the greatest threat to global security since World War II, a response designed to show a concrete and undisputable resolve against a dictator and to suffocate the Russian economy. That said, the greatest threat or challenge to effective decision-making is the oversimplification of the issues at hand. I wonder if today's motion does not fall into the trap of oversimplification.
What do I mean when I say that this motion may fall prey to oversimplification? While clauses (a) and (b) are definitely worth repeating, they are well understood and supported by all in this House. In other words, we all condemn Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation in no uncertain terms for what it has done. We stand four square behind the Ukrainian people, an extraordinarily courageous people fighting for the universal values of democracy and freedom against a shameless tyrant who has joined the hall of infamy, a room he shares with the bloody dictators of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Meanwhile section (c) of the motion is vague. What measures is the opposition talking about to ensure that new natural gas pipelines could be built to tidewater in the east? Are we talking about weakening the environmental assessment process that was recently modernized to obtain public and stakeholder buy-in to allow projects such as pipelines to be built across the diverse political landscape of this country and withstand the inevitable court challenges from opponents? Are we talking about creating a pipeline Crown corporation? Are we talking about the public financing of pipelines or about governments underwriting the private financial risks of pipeline builders? Are we suggesting suppressing provincial permitting processes?
Also, I find that part (c) of the motion abstracts from context, both present and future contexts. The present context is necessarily focused on helping the Ukrainian people under attack today through military aid, humanitarian support and air tight sanctions that are bringing to bear the heaviest financial and economic consequences on Putin's Russia and its oligarchs.
The present context is also necessarily focused on immediate energy needs. We know that natural gas accounts for 40% of the EU supply and Russian crude oil accounts for 25% of the EU's supply of crude oil. Fortunately, EU countries have a cushion in terms of oil reserves and 20 European Union countries are members of the International Energy Agency. They are thus obliged to hold at least 90 days of oil reserves. Fortunately, summer is coming and energy demand will fall.
As we speak, governments are working together to direct new supply to the European Union. As President Biden said in his state of the union address, the U.S. will be making supplies from the strategic oil reserves it has available. In fact, 30 other countries, including Canada, are joining the U.S. to release 60 million barrels of oil to stabilize the global energy market.
How else is the motion perhaps simplistic and therefore not immediately helpful? It gives the impression that building a pipeline is a fairly simple thing to do, but pipelines cannot be built in a day. They are not a tap we turn on and off. They are massive, financially and logistically complex, time-consuming enterprises. In addition to construction, there is, as I have mentioned, the environmental assessment process and the related efforts to obtain the agreement of communities along pipeline routes. We are past the days when projects could go ahead without environmental assessments, when the public, including indigenous peoples, could summarily be circumvented.
Finally, the Conservative motion abstracts from the longer term context, which involves numerous other dimensions. These dimensions include the fight against climate change, which is well under way, especially in Europe where efforts have been ongoing for years. Kadri Simson, the European Union Energy Commissioner, is quoted as saying that the strategy is ultimately “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible”.
Like Canada, the EU's plan is to become carbon neutral by 2050. European countries intend to, like Canada, synchronize electricity grids, among other things. Germany's very recent apparent reversal on building nuclear power plants points to what the future of energy in Europe might look like, a mix of non-emitting sources of power.
999 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised by this, but I regret to inform the House so early on that I will not be supporting this opposition motion.
This motion we have before us has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is a motion about pipelines. It is extremely unfortunate the Conservative Party of Canada would bring a motion to this House about pipelines under the guise of trying to be supportive of Ukraine.
This is so glaringly obvious to me, because nobody would every disagree with the first two clauses of this motion. I do not think there is a Canadian out there who does not realize the vast majority of Canadians stand with Ukraine right now. There is no one who follows politics closely, or even remotely follows politics, who does not realize that every party in this House supports the Ukrainian people, supports what they are fighting for and condemns Vladimir Putin.
The first two clauses in this motion are moot because we already passed unanimous consent motions of this support. We already talked about the different things we can be doing in Ukraine to make the situation there better and to properly support Ukraine as it is going through this extremely difficult time.
It all comes down to the third clause in this motion, which is a clause about pipelines. It would have been much more genuine had the Conservatives just shown up here today and said that they had a motion about pipelines, presented their motion saying that they want more pipelines, like they do so often in this House, and just called it for what it was.
Instead, Conservatives come in with this motion with these two additional clauses in it to somehow suggest that this has to do with Ukraine. This is just wedge politics they are doing right now. It is feeding to their base, which is so dead set on oil being the only solution.
We listened to what the Conservatives said today about energy security. They talk about energy as though oil is the only option for energy. They use the terms energy and oil interchangeably because they see oil as being the only option when it comes to energy.
I will talk about this motion in the context of it being a motion about pipelines. Let us just assume for a second that that was genuinely what the Conservatives wanted, that they came in here to talk about pipelines. It does not make any sense even from a pipeline perspective. The Conservatives keep talking about these new pipelines and the eastern European countries, and the other countries, that will supposedly be saved by them, but why is it that Conservatives think Europe wants to transfer its dependency from one third country to another third country? They do not want to do that.
As a matter of fact, the European commissioner for energy, Kadri Simson, said that the Russian invasion made their vulnerability painfully clear. She stated, “We cannot let any third country destabilize our energy markets or influence our energy choices.”
We have the energy commissioner for the European Union saying they do not want to be dependent on any third country for their energy sources, but then we have the Conservatives coming in here and saying that we need to build pipelines so we can make them dependent on us. The same commissioner for energy for the European Union said that they had to be “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible.”
Even if the European Union was looking to diversify and get some of this oil, even though the commissioner said it is not, it is not interested in oil as a source of energy. It is interested in renewables. That is what it is saying. Even if the Conservatives are coming from a well-intentioned place on this and really thought that these pipelines were about the security of Europe, those in Europe are telling us that they are not interested in them. They do not want to be dependent on another country and they are very much interested in looking for a very fast transition to renewables. That is not to mention the fact that building these pipelines will cost billions of dollars and will take years to complete.
Europe has made it clear that it is comfortable with its current reserve situation for this winter, but has to start looking toward next winter. It has also made it clear that it is not interested in being dependent on another country, and that it is interested in renewables as a form of energy as quickly as possible. Most of the western world is on board with this and understands it, the European energy commissioner knows this, four parties in the House know this and I would say the vast majority of Canadians know this, yet somehow the Conservatives come in here and are completely unaware of it. I am left wondering why they are doing this. Why do they think they need to put this forward? Do they genuinely think this is plausible? Let us remember that the European Union has said it is not interested and this will take years to build and a lot of money. Why are they doing this? Is it just to shore up their base and prove to their base that they are fighting for oil and gas? That is the only thing I can conclude as the motivation for bringing forward such a motion today.
In conclusion, I will say that I am more than willing to tell my Conservative colleagues across the way, all members of the House and all Canadians that I am not interested in pipelines. I am certainly not interested in the government subsidizing pipelines. I do not think there is a role anymore in this day and age for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing pipelines. Does that mean I am completely naive to the amount of oil we use? No, I am not. I am fully aware that to make the vast majority of the products in this room, if not all, we used oil, whether directly or indirectly. I am also aware that the technologies we need to be investing in and subsidizing are those that provide options to make these products differently so we can put different things into the various products we are currently making out of oil.
This is the default reaction from the Conservatives all the time. They always say that we need oil and that we will not be getting off oil tomorrow. I get that, I agree with that, I understand that and I am not dismissing it at all. However, I am saying that my personal opinion is that oil is not the solution long term. When we talk about building pipelines, we are talking long term. We are interested in 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. There will always be a dependency on some form of oil or gas and I get that, but hopefully not the degree of dependency we have today. We need to move away from this.
I surely do not support this motion, and I think it is shameful that the Conservatives are using a crisis on the other side of the world to promote their agenda.
1242 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this is a fairly cynical debate. We should be focused on humanitarian aid.
I want to point out that it is time for us to make a global shift, as he mentioned, to green and renewable energy. Russia is a petrostate where oil and gas make up 60% of exports. This gives Putin great leverage and allows him to make heating costs for people in Europe much more expensive by restricting the flow of exports. This causes gas prices to rise and hurts consumers. Not only is decarbonization crucial in the fight against climate change, but it robs autocrats like Putin and rulers of places like Saudi Arabia of their power and leverage.
Does my hon. colleague agree that we have no time to waste in making this shift and that the planet, world peace and our security depend on it?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:30:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I totally agree that we have no time to waste and that we need to do this as quickly as possible. To the member's other comment, I think Vladimir Putin knows that too, and I think he realizes that every day, every week and every year that goes by, as we get closer and closer to a permanent shift away, he loses that power. I think he has seized his opportunity now because he still retains some of that power. In 10, 15 or 20 years from now, that might not exist and he will be a lot less powerful.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:31:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava. This translates to “Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes.”
As Canadians, we are united in our disgust and opposition to Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war in Ukraine and the mounting loss of innocent life. We are deeply sympathetic to the struggle of Ukraine’s people for we understand Russia’s military assault is an attack on our own freedoms. This war threatens Europe’s stability. It could be ruinous to the rules-based multilateral system that has existed since 1945, which Canada helped create, and is the basis for our shared prosperity.
We support President Zelensky’s courageous leadership, as well as the heroic counterpunch of the Ukrainian army and civilians who have taken up arms to defend their way of life, a way of life that is similar to our own here in Canada. We are awestruck by the defiance of Ukrainians in the face of Russia’s military might and their willingness to fight, whatever the cost. Canada must continue to stand with Ukraine.
Indeed, the Government of Canada has responded quickly, in conjunction with our allies the United States and Europe, to Putin’s aggression in eastern Europe. Humanitarian and military aid has been promised and provided to Ukraine, punishing economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia and soldiers have been positioned along NATO’s eastern front. As well, the federal government has responded to calls for more action. I, along with many others Conservatives on Saturday, called for the closing of Canadian airspace to Russian air carriers, as our European allies had done. Ottawa soon did, and on Tuesday night Washington closed U.S. airspace to Russian air carriers.
We also insisted that Kremlin-controlled Russia Today television, which broadcasts Russian state propaganda, be removed from Canada’s airwaves. That too happened after Canada’s telecoms acted. After pressure mounted to end Russian oil imports to Canada, the federal government also decided it would ban crude oil imports to our country. This was a symbolic first step since Canadian refineries had not purchased Russian crude since 2019. However, last year’s petroleum imports from Russia totalled approximately $350 million. The Liberals corrected their omission mid-week by including refined petroleum products to the oil ban.
This is all necessary work, but it is not enough. Putin continues to push westward without fear of the consequences. Thus, it is necessary to realize that sanctions do not win wars. Soldiers and citizens with weapons do. What we are witnessing in Ukraine is the attempted overthrow and brutal destruction of an independent nation state.
As we engage in this debate, I know that in churches, train stations and home basements across Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are praying for peace as the sounds of sirens ring out warning of more Russian air strikes. Hospitals, playgrounds and even Babyn Yar, the Holocaust memorial site, have been hit by indiscriminate missile attacks. It is all sickening. Canada must do more to help our Ukrainian friends and allies.
It was in this vein that after Crimea was illegally seized by Putin, the previous Conservative government took military steps in 2015 to better arm and train our allies in Ukraine through Operation Unifier. Today, Ukraine should be provided arms and the financial resources to purchase weapons, especially to destroy tanks and aircraft.
As well, Canada should move quickly to grant asylum to Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression just as we did in 1956 when Hungary was occupied by the Soviets, but we must also recognize that what Ukrainians want foremost is arms, not sanctuary. Indeed, when the U.S. government asked President Zelensky if he wanted to be evacuated from his country to avoid being captured or, worse, killed by Russian soldiers, he replied, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” Ukrainians are asking for help to fight Russians and Canada should not hesitate a moment to provide them with whatever weapons they need to protect their home and fight the Russian military.
Here at home, there are more ways for Canada to help. Canada’s natural resources, our abundant gas and oil reserves, as well as minerals, should be mobilized to help Europe escape its dependence on Russia and China. This dependence weakens Europe in the face of Moscow’s aggression and ensures Russia a large market for its resources controlled by its oligarchs. The west must not continue Angela Merkel’s failed legacy a moment longer. Building Canada’s energy east pipeline to Saint John could have helped offset Europe’s dependence on Russian oil. The Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline could have ended U.S. dependence on Russian oil. This would have made Russia poorer and weaker.
Scuttling these pipelines were policy choices made in Ottawa and Washington, with significant geopolitical consequences. They should be reversed. Canada also is not able to ship our country’s abundant natural resources overseas. We are a trading nation. We have oil and gas to export, but we lack the means to do so. It is past time to build pipeline infrastructure to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and commit to being a reliable energy partner with Europe. The federal government must do whatever it can to advance Newfoundland and Labrador’s LNG export plans. This is because Putin’s ability to cut off Europe from natural gas has strengthened Russia and weakened Europe. Canada can contribute mightily to this strategic challenge with our abundant natural resources, but this will mean ending our federal government’s assault on Canada’s hydrocarbons.
Off the coast of Atlantic Canada, we can also do more. Canada and its partners must eject Russia from the executive management of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Russia should not be allowed to oversee the management of waters on the Grand Banks. No country should expect to benefit from or set economic agreements around the world, like lucrative fishing grounds, when it is smashing a nation elsewhere.
Canada is not at war with Russia, but lessons from Ukraine must be applied to our own sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that unfriendly nations do not recognize borders and are willing to act without fear of consequence. Putin has already moved to claim wide swaths of our Arctic territory as his own, including parts of the seabed in Canada’s north. The vast Arctic Archipelago and surrounding waters, along with its many natural resources, are part of Canada’s sovereign territory. To be ready, we must fix our military procurement strategy. Russia has 40 icebreaking vessels that can operate year round. Russia is building an Arctic navy. Meanwhile, Canada can barely patrol our vast Arctic waters year round with a single vessel. We must also quickly modernize NORAD’s early northern warning system and purchase F-35 jets to patrol ours and allies' skies.
President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and illegal war against Ukraine is a wake-up call for Canada. We must assist Ukraine. We must aid Europe. We must be ready to defend our north. We must be capable of asserting our sovereignty. I stand with Ukraine and believe Canada must help with every resource at our disposal.
Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava.
1243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:41:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I understand that one of the Conservatives’ main arguments is to make sure that Putin is not financed because the world is still purchasing its products. We know that Europe is relatively dependent, and that Germany is 50% dependent.
Also, when you talk about Canada supplying Europe, it is important to remember that Russian oligarchs have interests in Canadian oil companies and that the construction of gas pipelines could serve the interests of some of these oligarchs, in particular those invested in the steel industry.
I am wholeheartedly against the idea of building a gas pipeline. However, for argument’s sake, what would my colleague think about amending the proposal to systematically exclude all Canadian companies that, directly or indirectly, have Russian interests?
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech today and congratulate him on the birth of his second child, safe and healthy.
I certainly want to reiterate my support for the people of Ukraine and condemn Putin for his unprovoked attack and war of choice.
The member mentioned that we should be doing all that we can to support Ukraine at this time and look to practical solutions that would stop this now. Does the member actually believe that if this motion should pass, it would somehow tip the scales in the short term for the people of Ukraine? Is it not actually a huge distraction from where we should really be putting our energy right now?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 5:01:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are discussing a Conservative motion today, and I will be speaking as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.
The Conservatives are conflating several ideas and issues. They legitimately condemn the invasion of Ukraine and affirm their solidarity, which makes total sense. I have nothing to add in this respect. However, they are also promoting the construction and approval of new natural gas pipelines.
The logic seems to be unassailable. If Russia supplies Europe with oil and gas, and if we want to punish Russia, Canada must present itself to Europe as another source of oil and gas. The problem is that the proposal is commercially unrealistic and politically and environmentally irresponsible.
The importance of oil and gas to the economy and the geostrategic location of Russia are undeniable. Oil and gas played a role in Russia’s recovery from the severe economic and social crisis that shook the country between 1990 and 1997 as a result of the harsh neoliberal policies put in place at that time.
The hike in the price of oil and gas resulted in significant tax revenues for the Russian government given the tax on exports, but it must be said that the economic policies put in place by Moscow at the time went beyond the single issue of oil and gas.
In Vladimir Putin’s second term in 2004, state-controlled companies in the energy sector, including Gazprom, Transneft and Rosneft, who are still operating today, took on a key role in the new dynamic. However, the Russian economy does not depend solely on its oil and gas industry. Its economic policies are diversified. We should not assume that this would have a miraculous effect, although cutting supply would undoubtedly have a considerable impact.
Canada boasts that it was the first country to ban the importation of Russian oil. That is rather convenient, because it has not imported Russian oil since 2016. That works just fine.
Let us get back to the motion. In a motion on Ukraine, the Conservatives are proposing that we encourage the approval and construction of natural gas pipelines. Listening to some of the Liberal members, we cannot be sure how our colleagues across the aisle will vote, but there appears to be agreement at least with the idea behind the motion.
Those who are following the parliamentary debates on television, whom we welcome, can see the words “Invasion of Ukraine and naturalgas pipelines” at the bottom of their screen. That is the title they can see at the bottom.
It would be hard to find a more fallacious connection. The motion would have absolutely no impact on the conflict in Ukraine. Europe does not have an oil and natural gas supply problem. No country has called Canada for help with oil and gas.
In the case of oil, no one has mentioned the possibility of a shortage. The OPEC countries were very clear that they will be increasing production as needed. In the case of natural gas, the Russian banks, through which energies purchases are made, are excluded from the sanctions and can therefore do business as usual.
If Europe absolutely has to find other sources of oil and gas, some countries can take action in the short term. That is the case with the United States and Algeria, for example, who have gas pipelines connected to ports that could export to Europe, but that is not the case for Canada.
It would take several years before Canada could approve and build its gas pipelines and send a little liquefied natural gas to Europe. Does anyone think that the war in Ukraine will last 15 years? We hope not, of course. The proposal we are debating today consists essentially in selling a dream to Alberta. That is what we would call opportunism.
There is worse still. Today, in an article published in La Presse, Paul Journet reported that Russian oligarchs are invested in fossil fuels in western Canada. That means that the motion, if it were to be adopted, would help the Russian oligarchs. It is that simple.
Should we not have the same courage as the Europeans and seize their assets? That, however, would involve going against Canada’s worship of oil and gas.
In the short term, then, the proposal is insignificant in scope. However, one can defend the idea for the medium and long term. I am not saying that I agree, because I do not. I am saying that it is defensible. That said, if one chooses to defend it, it is on the condition that one stops pretending that there is a link with the war in Ukraine. It is also on the condition that we are all prepared to live with the consequences. What are the consequences?
First, there are environmental consequences, because natural gas is a fossil fuel, an energy of the past. I readily admit that we need it today. Does it make more sense to see a future over the medium or long term based on natural gas or do we feel the energy transition will have to be completed in the next 15 years? Personally, like my colleagues, I choose the second option.
Second, there are political consequences, because the proposal assumes that Russia will have to be isolated from Europe in the long run. I would hope that, should peace be re-established, the goal would not be to stigmatize, threaten, humiliate and impoverish Russia in the long term. What would happen, if we did that?
That would certainly not be in Canada's best interests because if Russia is isolated it will jump right into China's arms. That is the gamble we have been making for years and look at how it has turned out. Russia will, of course, align itself with China. Is that what we truly want?
The fundamentally hawkish and aggressive approach the Conservatives have taken in this motion will ultimately serve the interests of China. Although the Conservatives claim to want to isolate these so-called rival powers, they will ultimately ensure that these powers become best friends. Is that the right thing to do? Obviously not.
We expected to see Canada use the crisis to promote its fossil fuels. We nevertheless hoped it would be a little more subtle than this. Right now, Canada is about as subtle as a bull in a china shop.
Let us think about the transition. Let us come up with a solution that will show some real solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This means that we will have to think outside the box and avoid the echo chambers, because this proposal will get us nowhere.
1124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
